If you couldn't be a Buddhist, what would you be?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: If you couldn't be a Buddhist, what would you be?

Postby convivium » Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:16 pm

i'd be a non-academic skeptic (like pyrrhon), or cynic (like diogenes or real jesus). or somee secret of the golden flower related school of daoism that pretty much is buddhism :yingyang:
Just keep breathing in and out like this. Don't be interested in anything else. It doesn't matter even if someone is standing on their head with their ass in the air. Don't pay it any attention. Just stay with the in-breath and the out-breath. Concentrate your awareness on the breath. Just keep doing it. http://www.ajahnchah.org/book/Just_Do_It_1_2.php
User avatar
convivium
 
Posts: 574
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 7:13 am

Re: If you couldn't be a Buddhist, what would you be?

Postby alan... » Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:12 am

convivium wrote:
even Magick?

vajrayana, definitely.


yup. if you count every "form" of "buddhism" it contains elements of all religions.
alan...
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: If you couldn't be a Buddhist, what would you be?

Postby alan... » Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:28 am

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
jonno wrote:Hi all. When I examine the basic teachings of all the masters of all religions, I find that their core message is one of love, compassion , and respect for all beings.At the time that's all that existed, the tag of a religion came after their deaths whereupon all the beliefs dogmas etc. we're added. So my answer is that I would not follow any religion but would try to learn from and practice these masters basic teachings and disregard the sometimes crazy and illogical belief systems that were invented and attributed to them after their deaths. To me I cannot see any major difference between the Buddhas original teachings and Jesus's teachings in the beatitudes. Just to practice simply and live with compassion and love is enough for me with no labels attached. Namaste .Jonno

But what about Christ's teachings regarding a creator God? What about Hinduism's teachings of the Atman, or Muhammad's teachings about violence? Although most religions have, at their core, a message of compassion and love, they also have important differences; in fact, many central tenants of the world's major religions are diametrically opposed to what the Buddha taught.

If someone was over at my house for dinner and asked where the restroom was, I wouldn't say, "Well now, all hallways lead to the restroom. Designations about the nature of restroom paths are simply inventions to mask an eternal, omnipresent hallway." I would give them concrete and meaningful directions to a real place. Enlightenment is just as "real" a thing, so why shouldn't the instructions for arriving there be equally tangible?


jonno: i see what you're saying about all religions masters or whatever. however it's only applicable if we take JUST the suttas on metta. in these the buddha just espouses universal love as a method and in that way it's very close to many other religions. but if we look at all of his teachings he is teaching us to break up the parts of the mind and body so that we may see anatta and be free. i don't know of any other religions that teach this. it is very specific and unique in it's doctrine and methods.

all the rest involve faith in unseen and unknown things, buddhism is a "come and see" religion that challenges you to see anatta and other dhamma ideas first hand in this current life.

instead of "believe in god! believe in the eternal soul! you can't see it but have faith. you are 100% dependent on god(s)."

it's

"there is no self. by all means look! and look hard! try out some methods to look into the mind and body and you'll see for yourself and become independent of the masters dispensation eventually. you'll become totally independent of everything."


lonesome yogurt: lol. awesome analogy. exactly how my brain works when coming up with such things.
alan...
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: If you couldn't be a Buddhist, what would you be?

Postby nem » Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:10 am

Dead. :)

Well, what is a Bhuddist anyway? To have a Bhuddist, there has to be a self, and there is no self, therefore there is no Bhuddist..but this mind that sends these words, has absorbed the instructions that we understand to have come from the canonical Bhudda. Other bodies with other minds, would look to this body and actions and say that there is some me, and that me is Bhuddist.

"I" came to learn the teachings of the Bhudda during a difficult time in "my" so-called life. So, the clarity that "he" had, this informed me in "my" so-called life. It doesn't seem clear, whether there is any difference between being "Bhuddist" and something else, or whether the Bhudda existed as a person or not is really important. The eyes see the words of the canonical Bhudda in the printed nikayas and this comes through mind and is maybe beneficial. Or the ears hear talks on the dhamma and the mind takes this and maybe it is beneficial if the mind finds utility in it, and it calms the mind. But, Bhuddist, the concept of being "Bhuddist" is contrary to the instructions that "we" understand to have come from the Bhudda. In the profundity of it, to even conceive of Bhuddism as a fixed thing is maybe wrong view.
nem
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:26 am
Location: Samsāra

Previous

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cooran, LXNDR, Zadok and 7 guests